SEATTLE--The
National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a lobbying group whose
self-described mission is to "defend evolution," has responded to scholarly
criticism of the recent public television series "Evolution" with a
series of shrill web postings that rely largely on mudslinging rather
than science.

"Scholars
have raised significant objections to the scientific accuracy of the
one-sided 'Evolution' series," says philosopher of science Stephen Meyer,
director of Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science
and Culture. "These objections have been amply documented from the relevant
scientific literature. Unfortunately, instead of engaging in a discussion
of the merits of the criticisms raised, the NCSE has for the most part
responded with red herrings and ad hominems."

"The negative
tactics of the NCSE seem more like a political campaign than a science
discussion," adds Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Far
from alleviating fears about the credibility of 'Evolution,' the NCSE's
approach merely reinforces our concerns that the 'Evolution' series
is aimed more at championing a pre-determined agenda than impartially
exploring evolutionary biology."

On its
website the NCSE repeatedly claims that Discovery Institute and its
scholars have misquoted or misrepresented various evolutionary biologists
in their effort to critique the "Evolution" series.

"The NCSE's
'misquotation' claim is a strategy often used to protect Darwinian orthodoxy
from scientific criticism," responds biologist Jonathan Wells, a Discovery
Institute Senior Fellow who holds a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology
from the University of California at Berkeley. "All scientific theories--including
Darwin's theory of evolution--must be

compared
with the evidence. Darwinian biologists themselves frequently acknowledge
that there are problems with the evidence for various aspects of evolutionary
theory. Dogmatic Darwinists, however, believe in the theory so fervently
that they don't like critics to quote their candid assessments of the
evidence. So they claim that they have been misquoted, when in fact
they have been quoted correctly."

"Apparently,"
Wells says, "the NCSE thinks that if the charge of misquotation is repeated
often enough, people will eventually believe it. But anyone who looks
at the original context of the quotations will see that it is the NCSE--not
Discovery Institute--that has been engaging in a pattern of misrepresentation.
It is true that the evolutionary biologists we quoted believe in Darwin's
theory, but we never claimed otherwise. On the contrary, we were highlighting
the fact that even Darwinian biologists often disagree sharply about
what the evidence shows. The utter failure to cover these disagreements
constitutes one of the 'Evolution' series' greatest flaws, since it
is ultimately the evidence that determines whether Darwin's theory is
true or not."

The NCSE's
alleged "misquotations" by Discovery Institute include:

***Quotations
from science writer Henry Gee pointing out the serious problems that
exist for anyone trying to reconstruct the story of human ancestry from
fossil evidence.

Writing
in his recent book "In Search of Deep Time" (Free Press, 1999), Gee
argues that conventional theories of the origin and development of human
beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped
to accord with human prejudices." Indeed, such theories carry "the same
validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but
not scientific."

In an NCSE
web posting, Gee reiterates his skepticism of attempts to trace ancestor/descendant
lineages from the fossil record. "That it is impossible to trace direct
lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident,"
he says, adding that "unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that
ancestor/descendent [sic] lineages can be traced from the fossil record,
and my book is intended to debunk this view." Gee goes on to say that
his book was intended to show "that old-style, traditional evolutionary
biology--the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore
more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries--is unscientific."

"That is
precisely the point we were trying to make about the 'Evolution' series,"
says biologist Jonathan Wells. "When it comes to human evolution, the
'Evolution' series was so intent on telling a pre-determined story that
it neglected to include evolutionists like Gee who point out the difficulties
in trying to reconstruct evolutionary history from the fossil record.
This isn't good science education."

While confirming
the essential accuracy of Discovery's quotations by his new statements,
Gee inexplicably lashes out at those affiliated with Discovery Institute
as "religious fundamentalists who live by dictatorial fiat" and
who "fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health
rather than decay." He goes on to label Discovery Institute's "opinions"
as "regressive, repressive, divisive, [and] sectarian...," but he provides
no evidence for these assertions, and he fails to identify the alleged
opinions to which he refers.

"We don't
know where Mr. Gee gets his information about Discovery Institute, but
it is not a religious organization, nor is it run by 'religious fundamentalists,'"
says Discovery President Bruce Chapman. "In fact, scholars affiliated
with our Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture come from a wide
variety of religious--and non-religious--backgrounds, including Jewish,
Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, and agnostic.
As for not understanding that scientific disagreements are healthy,
Mr. Gee seems unaware that we agree wholeheartedly that such disagreements
are healthy for science. That is why we were so disturbed when the 'Evolution'
series neglected to discuss the views of evolutionists like Mr. Gee
who raise important criticisms of some claims made by paleontologists.
We think it is important for the public to learn about such legitimate
disagreements among evolutionary scientists. Unfortunately, Mr. Gee
seems to be thoroughly misinformed about who we are."

***Quotations
from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne that criticize the controversial
field known as "evolutionary psychology."

In a press
release criticizing "Evolution's" one-sided coverage of the field
of evolutionary psychology, Discovery Institute quoted several biologists
who are sharply critical of this field of research, including biologist
Jerry Coyne. According to Coyne, evolutionary psychologists "deal in
their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science" and "evolutionary
psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania."

"The point
of quoting Coyne and other critics of evolutionary psychology was to
show just how one-sided the 'Evolution' series is even in highly disputed
areas of evolutionary biology," says Discovery Institute Senior Fellow
John West. "As we noted in our original press release, although the
'Evolution' series glancingly admits that evolutionary psychology is
'controversial' it never bothers to supply air-time to any of the critics
of evolutionary psychology. We find this omission indefensible."

In an NCSE
web posting, Coyne castigates Discovery Institute for trying to "sow
doubt about the fact of evolution simply because scientists do not know
every detail about how evolution occurred," even while admitting that
he has been "a strong critic" of evolutionary psychology " because
I feel that its practitioners often hold low standards of evidence and
because it is difficult to test theories about behaviors that evolved
millions of years ago." Coyne goes on to suggest that he is satisfied
by the coverage of evolutionary psychology in the "Evolution" series
because some of his criticisms are quoted in the series' companion book.

"That doesn't
change the fact that the documentary itself (which is what we criticized)
is blatantly one-sided and gives no air-time to the critics of evolutionary
psychology," says West. "And despite the fact that Mr. Coyne attacks
Discovery Institute, he has confirmed that we quoted him accurately
by reiterating yet again his strong criticisms of the 'low standards
of evidence' held by many evolutionary psychologists."

***Quotations
from anthropologist Geoffrey Clark that criticize the field of paleoanthropology.

In a 1997
article Geoffrey Clark declared that "we select among alternative sets
of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions--a
process that is, at once, both political and subjective," and that paleoanthropology
"has the form but not the substance of a science."

"We quoted
Clark to show how superficial the coverage of human evolution was in
'Evolution,'" says biologist Jonathan Wells. "Viewers were given the
impression that the evidence for human origins is straightforward and
unambiguous. They were never told that experts in the field acknowledge
that their often-conflicting interpretations of the evidence are strongly
influenced by subjective biases and philosophical preconceptions."

Asked by
the NCSE to comment on Discovery Institute's citation of his statement,
Clark alleged that his remarks had been "taken completely out of context."

"Perhaps
Clark no longer wishes to defend the views he held in 1997, but we certainly
quoted the views he expressed in his original article accurately," responds
Wells. A more detailed description of Clark's original article and its
context can be found here.

"We encourage
people to read Clark's original article for themselves," says Discovery
Institute spokesman Mark Edwards. "We are confident that if they do
so, they will see that we accurately described what Clark said, contrary
to assertions by the NSCE."

"If the
NCSE expects to be taken seriously, it should stop making unfounded
charges of 'misquotation,'" adds Edwards. "If the NCSE wants to do something
useful, it could explain why it continues to defend a documentary series
that is so obviously one-sided."

Founded
in 1990, Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy
center for national and international affairs. Its programs deal with
a range of issues, including science, technology, regional development,
environment, and defense. More information about the Institute and its
activities can be found at http://www.discovery.org/.